OCCUPY WALL STREET may be long gone fromlower Manhattan, but worries persist about the gapbetween Americas richest 1% and the rest. Talk ofinequality pervades the presidential race. In hisJanuary state-of-the-union message, BarackObama called the struggle for a level economicplaying field the defining issue of our time.

　　占領(lǐng)華爾街行動可能在曼哈頓下城一去不復(fù)返了，但人們對美國1%富人與其他階層之間的差距的擔(dān)憂仍未消散?？偨y(tǒng)競選中也充斥著關(guān)于社會不公的演講。巴拉克?奧巴馬在一月份的國情咨文演說中將爭取一個同等的經(jīng)濟競爭場地稱為我們時代的決定性事件。

　　Republicans bristle at the notion. In February Rick Santorum, the second-placed Republicancandidate, declared: There is income inequality in America. There always has been and,hopefully, and I do say that, there always will be. New income data from Emmanuel Saez,an economist at the University of California at Berkeley, may fan the flames.

　　共和黨人被這個看法激怒了。二月份，共和黨總統(tǒng)提名候選人的第二位熱門人選Rick Santorum稱：美國存在收入差距，而且一直以來都有，我希望，我的確是這么說的，將一直有收入差距。美國加州大學(xué)伯克利分校的一位經(jīng)濟學(xué)家 Emmanuel Saez提供的新收入數(shù)據(jù)可能更是火上澆油。

　　Mr Saez is well known for his work on tracking the share of national income that goes to thehighest earners. From Internal Revenue Service tax numbers he has constructed a series ofdata going back to 1913 that has helped frame the debate over rising inequality inAmerica. On the eve of the Great Recession, his numbers show, income gaps reachedextremes last experienced in the late 1920s. The top 10% of American earners brought in46% of the nations salary income in 2007. The top 0.1% alone earned over 12% of all salaryincome. These striking totals capped years of rising inequality. Between 1993 and 2010,over half of all real income gains in America flowed to the top 1%.

　　Saez 先生致力于追蹤美國最高收入者占有的國民收入份額，他因這項工作而廣為人知。根據(jù)國內(nèi)收入署提供的稅收編號，Saez 構(gòu)造了一組1913年以來的數(shù)據(jù)，激起了美國國內(nèi)對越發(fā)嚴(yán)重的社會不公的辯論。其數(shù)據(jù)顯示，在經(jīng)濟大衰退前夕，收入差距達到極端值，最近一次達到該值是在 20世紀(jì)20年代末。2007年，排名前10%的美國收入者將全國工資收入的46%收入囊中，而單單是前0.1%的高收入者就掙得了占據(jù)逾12%的工資。這些驚人的數(shù)據(jù)代表多年以來的貧富不均現(xiàn)象達到了頂峰。1993-2010年間，有超過一半的全國實際收入所得流入美國1%的人口手中。

　　The recession then took a heavy toll on the rich. Between 2007 and 2009 the inflation-adjusted income of the bottom 99% dropped by 11.6%, the largest decline seen since theDepression. The top 1% suffered a much larger drop of 36.3%, substantial enough tosuggest the possibility of a break in the previous trend. The distribution of incomes inAmerica levelled off sharply in the 1930s and remained flat until the late 1980s . Arepeat performance seemed possible.

　　此次大衰退給富人們造成了嚴(yán)重的損失。 2007-2009年間，調(diào)整通脹后，占人口99%的較低收入者的收入削減了11.6%，是大蕭條以來的最大降幅。1%的富人的降幅則更大，達到 36.3%，足以有超過先前趨勢的可能。大蕭條時期20世紀(jì)30年代，美國的收入分配大幅趨平，這種情況持續(xù)到了20世紀(jì)80年末。這次似乎又是一次循環(huán)。

　　That now looks less likely. On March 2nd Mr Saez updated his figures to the end of 2010. Thenew data reveal a rebound in the fortunes of the rich. From 2009 to 2010, the top 1% ofearners enjoyed an 11.6% rise in income while the rest of the workforce saw a gain of just0.2%.

　　現(xiàn)在看來，那似乎不太可能了。3月2日，Saez 先生將其數(shù)據(jù)更新至2010年末。新數(shù)據(jù)顯示富人們的財富值正在反彈。從2009年到2010年，1%富人的收入上漲了11.6%，而其他工薪階層只上漲了0.2%。

　　Renewed gains at the top are not surprising. Declines in high incomes during the recessionwere driven by a collapse in stock prices, which have since roared back to their levels ofbefore the crisis. By contrast, salary income has scarcely budged. Excluding capital gains,the top 10% of earners captured a near-record share of income in 2010. More increases mayfollow.

　　富人收入重新上漲并不奇怪。大衰退時期其收入降低是由于受到股市暴跌的影響，而自那以后，股價一路飆升回危機前的水平。相比之下，工薪階層的收入?yún)s幾乎沒改變過。除了資本所得，10%富人的工資占全國總工資的比例也在2010年達到新高，未來可能還會繼續(xù)上漲。

　　Mr Saez argues that there was little reason to expect enduring change from the GreatRecession. The Depression hurt the rich, but it was the regulatory and tax changes thatfollowed which made a lasting impact on income distribution. Regulatory reform in thewake of the latest crash has been far more restrained.

　　Saez 先生認為，不應(yīng)該期待大衰退之后會發(fā)生持久的變化。經(jīng)濟大蕭條重創(chuàng)富人階層，但那是因為當(dāng)時進行了管理和稅務(wù)改革，給收入分配造成了長久的影響。而緊隨此次大衰退而來的監(jiān)管改革力度要比大蕭條時溫和多了。

　　Despite some Democrats rhetoric, big new tax increases are highly unlikely. Mr Obamaproposes to cut the deficit by returning the top marginal income-tax rate to the 39.6% levelof the late 1990s. Between 1932 and 1944, by contrast, the tax rate on top incomes rosefrom 25% to 94%. Such confiscatory rates are hard to imagine now.But the resumption of thepre-recession trend may change the political debate.

　　盡管一些民主黨人善于言辭，但大幅提高稅收幾乎是不可能的。為了減少赤字，奧巴馬提議將富人的邊緣收入稅率調(diào)回至20世紀(jì)90年代的水平，即39.6%。相比之下，在1932-1944年間，對富人征收的收入稅率卻從25%提高到94%。如今如此高的征收率已是難以想象的了。然而，但貧富差距的走勢如果恢復(fù)到大衰退時期之前，那就可能會改變這場政治辯論。

　　OCCUPY WALL STREET may be long gone fromlower Manhattan, but worries persist about the gapbetween Americas richest 1% and the rest. Talk ofinequality pervades the presidential race. In hisJanuary state-of-the-union message, BarackObama called the struggle for a level economicplaying field the defining issue of our time.

　　占領(lǐng)華爾街行動可能在曼哈頓下城一去不復(fù)返了，但人們對美國1%富人與其他階層之間的差距的擔(dān)憂仍未消散?？偨y(tǒng)競選中也充斥著關(guān)于社會不公的演講。巴拉克?奧巴馬在一月份的國情咨文演說中將爭取一個同等的經(jīng)濟競爭場地稱為我們時代的決定性事件。

　　Republicans bristle at the notion. In February Rick Santorum, the second-placed Republicancandidate, declared: There is income inequality in America. There always has been and,hopefully, and I do say that, there always will be. New income data from Emmanuel Saez,an economist at the University of California at Berkeley, may fan the flames.

　　共和黨人被這個看法激怒了。二月份，共和黨總統(tǒng)提名候選人的第二位熱門人選Rick Santorum稱：美國存在收入差距，而且一直以來都有，我希望，我的確是這么說的，將一直有收入差距。美國加州大學(xué)伯克利分校的一位經(jīng)濟學(xué)家 Emmanuel Saez提供的新收入數(shù)據(jù)可能更是火上澆油。

　　Mr Saez is well known for his work on tracking the share of national income that goes to thehighest earners. From Internal Revenue Service tax numbers he has constructed a series ofdata going back to 1913 that has helped frame the debate over rising inequality inAmerica. On the eve of the Great Recession, his numbers show, income gaps reachedextremes last experienced in the late 1920s. The top 10% of American earners brought in46% of the nations salary income in 2007. The top 0.1% alone earned over 12% of all salaryincome. These striking totals capped years of rising inequality. Between 1993 and 2010,over half of all real income gains in America flowed to the top 1%.

　　Saez 先生致力于追蹤美國最高收入者占有的國民收入份額，他因這項工作而廣為人知。根據(jù)國內(nèi)收入署提供的稅收編號，Saez 構(gòu)造了一組1913年以來的數(shù)據(jù)，激起了美國國內(nèi)對越發(fā)嚴(yán)重的社會不公的辯論。其數(shù)據(jù)顯示，在經(jīng)濟大衰退前夕，收入差距達到極端值，最近一次達到該值是在 20世紀(jì)20年代末。2007年，排名前10%的美國收入者將全國工資收入的46%收入囊中，而單單是前0.1%的高收入者就掙得了占據(jù)逾12%的工資。這些驚人的數(shù)據(jù)代表多年以來的貧富不均現(xiàn)象達到了頂峰。1993-2010年間，有超過一半的全國實際收入所得流入美國1%的人口手中。

　　The recession then took a heavy toll on the rich. Between 2007 and 2009 the inflation-adjusted income of the bottom 99% dropped by 11.6%, the largest decline seen since theDepression. The top 1% suffered a much larger drop of 36.3%, substantial enough tosuggest the possibility of a break in the previous trend. The distribution of incomes inAmerica levelled off sharply in the 1930s and remained flat until the late 1980s . Arepeat performance seemed possible.

　　此次大衰退給富人們造成了嚴(yán)重的損失。 2007-2009年間，調(diào)整通脹后，占人口99%的較低收入者的收入削減了11.6%，是大蕭條以來的最大降幅。1%的富人的降幅則更大，達到 36.3%，足以有超過先前趨勢的可能。大蕭條時期20世紀(jì)30年代，美國的收入分配大幅趨平，這種情況持續(xù)到了20世紀(jì)80年末。這次似乎又是一次循環(huán)。

　　That now looks less likely. On March 2nd Mr Saez updated his figures to the end of 2010. Thenew data reveal a rebound in the fortunes of the rich. From 2009 to 2010, the top 1% ofearners enjoyed an 11.6% rise in income while the rest of the workforce saw a gain of just0.2%.

　　現(xiàn)在看來，那似乎不太可能了。3月2日，Saez 先生將其數(shù)據(jù)更新至2010年末。新數(shù)據(jù)顯示富人們的財富值正在反彈。從2009年到2010年，1%富人的收入上漲了11.6%，而其他工薪階層只上漲了0.2%。

　　Renewed gains at the top are not surprising. Declines in high incomes during the recessionwere driven by a collapse in stock prices, which have since roared back to their levels ofbefore the crisis. By contrast, salary income has scarcely budged. Excluding capital gains,the top 10% of earners captured a near-record share of income in 2010. More increases mayfollow.

　　富人收入重新上漲并不奇怪。大衰退時期其收入降低是由于受到股市暴跌的影響，而自那以后，股價一路飆升回危機前的水平。相比之下，工薪階層的收入?yún)s幾乎沒改變過。除了資本所得，10%富人的工資占全國總工資的比例也在2010年達到新高，未來可能還會繼續(xù)上漲。

　　Mr Saez argues that there was little reason to expect enduring change from the GreatRecession. The Depression hurt the rich, but it was the regulatory and tax changes thatfollowed which made a lasting impact on income distribution. Regulatory reform in thewake of the latest crash has been far more restrained.

　　Saez 先生認為，不應(yīng)該期待大衰退之后會發(fā)生持久的變化。經(jīng)濟大蕭條重創(chuàng)富人階層，但那是因為當(dāng)時進行了管理和稅務(wù)改革，給收入分配造成了長久的影響。而緊隨此次大衰退而來的監(jiān)管改革力度要比大蕭條時溫和多了。

　　Despite some Democrats rhetoric, big new tax increases are highly unlikely. Mr Obamaproposes to cut the deficit by returning the top marginal income-tax rate to the 39.6% levelof the late 1990s. Between 1932 and 1944, by contrast, the tax rate on top incomes rosefrom 25% to 94%. Such confiscatory rates are hard to imagine now.But the resumption of thepre-recession trend may change the political debate.

　　盡管一些民主黨人善于言辭，但大幅提高稅收幾乎是不可能的。為了減少赤字，奧巴馬提議將富人的邊緣收入稅率調(diào)回至20世紀(jì)90年代的水平，即39.6%。相比之下，在1932-1944年間，對富人征收的收入稅率卻從25%提高到94%。如今如此高的征收率已是難以想象的了。然而，但貧富差距的走勢如果恢復(fù)到大衰退時期之前，那就可能會改變這場政治辯論。